A controversial end to a shocking murder

YANCEYVILLE, N.C. — Jameil Simpson, Turner Blackwell and Nicholas King are now in prison for many years without the hope of parole or appeal arising out of the robbery and murder 13 months ago of Sayed Rawi, a prominent Casville storekeeper and artist.

Of course, I take responsibility for negotiating the pleas accepted by the Caswell County Superior Court judge for those three defendants. I respect the reasonable opinions of those who decry our decision and who feel that we should not compromise these three cases under any circumstances, but the risks were too great to the community and the implications of sinister motives by some blog writers are unfair.

District attorneys who know the law are often faced with tough choices, and I chose the route that would guarantee the safety of our community from these three criminals for a lengthy period of time. I ask you to place the same energy into reading below and attempting to appreciate the dilemmas facing a district attorney in this case.

Problems with the case

I praised the work of the Caswell County Sheriff’s Office in the early identification and arrest of these individuals. As a district attorney, sadly, I knew in evaluating the evidence gathered in this case that in my best judgment of 28 years of trying homicide cases, these potential trials had a very doubtful outcome and risked these criminals going back onto the streets. I also did not want what happened in Durham with former District Attorney Mike Nifong to happen here, a clear example of a DA divulging too much information to the public prior to the trial.

Of course, I could have allowed the court to rule on Simpson’s motion to suppress his statement as filed by his attorney. Since Simpson was not read his rights, his statement detailing the horror of this crime would have been ruled inadmissible. No one could identify Simpson or Blackwell as the ones who ran from the store, nor could they identify King as the vehicle’s operator at that time. A fireman did describe the vehicle and stated that two persons ran to the car and joined the driver. When the car was stopped a couple of hours later, neither Simpson — nor the gun or the cash register — were found.

It was a strategic move on our part to offer the plea to Simpson before the motion to suppress his statement had been heard. Simpson’s attorney sought to hear the motion — then offer the plea — but it was obvious to myself and other lawyers on my staff that Simpson would not voluntarily accept such time as he did if the motion to suppress had been granted. And in our legal opinion, it was certain that statement would be thrown out of court, and thereby, any other evidence gained from Simpson — including the location of the pistol — would be at issue. This is called the “fruit of the poisonous tree” in criminal procedure by the U.S. Supreme Court — basic to all who go to law school.

Leaving for Iraq?

In the fall of 2008, when an officer whose testimony was necessary to introduce laboratory analysis of evidence alerted us that he was planning to accept a private contractual job in Iraq to better support his family, I supported — but regretted — his decision. We immediately wrote and called the SBI lab and continued several times to request that the analysis be expedited. We were not allowed to try the case before this evidence had been processed, and we did not receive any reports until the analysis was complete the last week of January of this year. Over the objection of the attorneys for the defendants, we scheduled these cases and the Major Myers case — which also needed this officer — and obtained a special term of court to give us two weeks of trial time in February.

But that would not be enough to try all four: Myers, Simpson, Blackwell and King.

I was faced with a decision about detaining this officer for whom I had a huge amount of respect as a material witness and not allowing him to go to Iraq to take advantage of this financial opportunity to support his family until all four had been tried. That would have taken not only the two February sessions of court, but also additional sessions in March and April, possibly causing this officer to lose this opportunity. Defendants’ cases such as these cannot be joined together without further limiting your evidence about the other two defendants’ out-of-court admissions. I made the decision not to risk this officer’s new job — or more importantly, risk the escape from any prison sentence — of any of these defendants. For those decisions, I accept responsibility.

Three big problems

Blackwell made conflicting statements early on about the involvement of King. King said all this was a total surprise. None of these individuals had any criminal record, and Simpson, the shooter, was 16 years of age at the time of this offense.

So, I was:

• unable to have all the evidence to try these cases before Feb. 16;

• unable to use Simpson’s statement; and

• faced with serving a material witness order, detaining a popular and talented officer who was trying to make the best possible decision for the welfare of his family (and I respected that) and probably costing him his new employment.

No court would have allowed me to proceed without this laboratory evidence being made available to the defense attorneys. Without Simpson’s statement, I would have been forced to negotiate with one or more of these criminals to testify against another.

When a co-defendant testifies under a promise of sentence reduction, the court instructs the jury that it is to scrutinize the testimony of such a witness/defendant with the upmost care and should weigh the rewards offered to him for such testimony. Defense lawyers tell juries this is “bought and sold testimony.”

‘I am accountable’

Of course, I consulted with the brother of Sayed Rawi prior to accepting these pleas. He knew of the friendship of Sayed and myself. He was explained the pitfalls in our case and the danger of an acquittal of one or more of these young criminals.

Ultimately, to the mothers and fathers of the many communities of Caswell County, I am accountable. My decision was the best I knew to ensure that for the youth of their children who wished to grow up here safely, that these three individuals would remain in prison until most present children of Caswell grow into adulthood. Simpson, 16 at the time of this offense, well liked in his church where he sang in the choir and without any criminal record, will be about 40 years old when he is released from prison and the other two offenders will be in their thirties; by this time, they are usually aged out of this type of senseless violence.

The decision I made had a guaranteed result of safety of the public from Simpson for more than two decades and from Blackwell and Turner until at least 2020. There was nothing to gain here for me personally but a guarantee of community safety during this period of their sentences. I believe my fellow district attorneys across this state would have made the same decision. I also believe no district attorney could have proved the guilt of all three defendants beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty on the evidence available.

Tough and fair decisions

For those of you who wish to try to understand my decision-making process, I hope this assists you — and please know I am always available to talk. For those who choose to think the worst of me, I ask you only to be fair in your criticism, and if you desire further information, know that you have a district attorney who chose certain punishment without parole for these offenders in an uncertain and tragic case, that the sentencing judge concurred and that I can talk about cases once they are completed.

I was, in these cases, ready for trial, but I have always put the welfare of Caswell’s citizens first. A district attorney has to make tough and fair decisions in accord with the law.

Sometimes, the law itself may not seem fair. I suppose this is why my hair is so gray, but I promise you the people of Caswell County, I never have — nor never will — make any decision based on anything other than what I believe is righteous under all the circumstances of the evidence available for trial.

• Joel H. Brewer is the district attorney for Caswell and Person counties in North Carolina.